[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16849-16855]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2443, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION 
                              ACT OF 2004

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 730, I 
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2443) to authorize 
appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2004, to amend 
various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 730, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 20, 2004 at page H 6022.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on 
H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Authorization and Maritime Transportation 
Act of 2004.
  This conference report is the result of a very bipartisan effort. I 
notice this is a word being used often today on this floor, but I want 
to compliment especially the committee I serve on. It was worked out 
with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
LoBiondo), the ranking members from the full committee and the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and all of the conferees; and 
it deserves the support of all Members.
  As this body's only licensed mariner and elected Member for all of 
Alaska, I am extremely interested in making sure the Coast Guard has 
the tools necessary to carry out its many varied missions. This bill 
gives the Coast Guard the resources and authorities necessary to 
protect the safety and security of lives and property on U.S. waters.
  H.R. 2443 authorizes $8.2 billion to support activities of the Coast 
Guard for fiscal year 2005 and includes a number of provisions which 
will result in a safer, more effective system of maritime 
transportation.
  My State of Alaska contains nearly one-third of the Nation's 
exclusive economic zone, the Nation's largest fishery, and significant 
cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am concerned about the 
ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its traditional search, 
fisheries law enforcement, and vessel inspection missions.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by 
the Coast Guard, often under dangerous conditions and circumstances. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. John Rayfield and Mr. Mark 
Zachares for their hard work, and thank the staff on both the Senate 
and House side. The staff has worked very hard to ensure this has been 
done correctly.
  Again, may I stress, I hope we can do the same thing on the highway 
bill as we have done on this bill, and through a bipartisan effort, 
achieve our goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for 
his remarks, and certainly the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the ranking member from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar). I would say to the gentleman from Alaska, maybe we 
should ask unanimous consent to substitute the highway bill for this 
conference report!
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Chairman Young to strongly support the 
conference report for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard Authorization and 
Maritime Transportation Act of 2004.
  This legislation is the culmination of our work in this Congress in 
examining the Coast Guard missions, with particular emphasis on the 
funding for the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 and their 
new homeland security missions.
  The bill authorizes over $8.2 billion for Coast Guard operations for 
fiscal year 2005. We believe this will be sufficient funding for the 
Coast Guard to carry out their many missions, including homeland 
security, search and rescue, marine safety, drug and migrant 
interdiction and law enforcement, which includes $5.4 billion for Coast 
Guard operating expenses, $1.5 billion for acquisition and construction 
projects, $24.2 million for research and development, and $19.65 
million for alteration of bridges.
  In particular, I am pleased that the conferees recommended that the 
Coast Guard should lease additional helicopters to establish a 
helicopter interdiction tactical squadron, HITRON, armored on the West 
Coast. Since their establishment in Jacksonville, Florida, the East 
Coast HITRON squadron has stopped over $4 billion in illegal drugs from 
entering the United States. Deployment of a HITRON squadron on the West 
Coast will help stem the flow of illegal narcotics through the eastern 
Pacific Ocean.
  There is sufficient authorized funding in this bill for the Coast 
Guard to lease the helicopters required for this deployment. If one 
were to look at this using a cost-benefit analysis, the $39 million we 
spend to lease and deploy an armored HITRON squadron on the West Coast 
will stop drugs valued at more than 20 times that amount.

[[Page 16850]]

  It is my strong view that the Coast Guard must increase existing 
airborne use of force assets for port security and drug interdiction. 
The lease option for these aircraft is already in place. The lease 
provides antiterrorist and antidrug coverage for the next 3 to 5 years 
while providing flexibility for the Coast Guard to engage in a 
competition to select a permanent multimission Cutter helicopter to 
meet the post-9/11 challenge. When these multimission helicopters are 
deployed, the HITRON helicopters can be returned to the manufacturer at 
the option of the Coast Guard.
  We make a number of other substantive changes in the law, including 
providing critical skill training bonuses for enlisted members, 
providing legal authority to build new housing for Coast Guard and 
military personnel, extending the International Safety Management Code 
to all vessels operating in U.S. waters, and requiring electronic 
charts on ships to help prevent accidents such as the 1989 accident of 
the Exxon Valdez when they lost their way in Prince William Sound in 
Alaska. We also extend the oil spill response plans to cargo ships 
entering U.S. ports, not just tankers.
  I thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young); the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo); and the ranking member of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their bipartisan effort 
to put the bill together.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the chairman of the subcommittee, who 
has done an outstanding job on this legislation.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership of the full committee and this conference. 
I also want to thank the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), as well 
as all of the conferees of the House and Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of the conference report on 
the Coast Guard Maritime Transportation Act. The conference report 
authorizes funding and personnel numbers for the Coast Guard and 
includes a number of other measures that will improve both the 
operational capability of the Coast Guard and the safety of our 
maritime transportation system.
  This conference report also includes important provisions designed to 
build upon the work we did in the Maritime Transportation Security Act 
of 2001 to strengthen security at our ports.
  H.R. 2443 includes language to clarify that members of the Coast 
Guard may make arrests for violations of Federal law while conducting 
security operations at our port facilities, to direct the Coast Guard 
to conduct vulnerability assessments of any waters adjacent to nuclear 
power plants to help ensure we are properly prepared for a waterborne 
threat to these facilities, and to authorize a new program to fund 
pilot projects that will test promising new technologies that could 
improve security at our ports.
  I am particularly pleased that the other body has agreed with Members 
of the House regarding the need to accelerate Coast Guard's asset 
recapitalization program known as Operation Deepwater. This report 
authorizes a funding level of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 2005. This 
level of funding puts us on track to accelerate Deepwater's completion 
date to February 1, 2006, 5 years earlier than originally planned.
  The effective accomplishment of the Coast Guard's national and 
homeland security missions, as well as its ability to sustain the level 
of performance of traditional missions, is predicated upon having a 
required funding level to replace its aging and rapidly failing assets 
sooner than the 20-year projected plan.
  The need to accelerate is compelling. Over 20 110-foot patrol boats 
underwent emergency dry dock for breached hulls this past year, and the 
rest of the fleet is in immediate need of repair for structural 
corrosion. Over the past year, the HH-65 helicopters have suffered more 
than 125 in-flight main engine power losses, robbing the asset of its 
ability to hover and placing the lives of its crew, passengers and 
those below in grave danger.
  These failures are increasing maintenance costs and are resulting in 
the direct loss of over 600 patrol days annually, severely affecting 
readiness and diminishing the service's ability to respond to terrorist 
threats and conduct its other vital missions.
  I firmly believe that, as authorizers, it is our job to set goals and 
priorities for the service. The accelerated replacement of these assets 
is one of the Coast Guard's highest priorities. I commend my colleagues 
for their support of this critical issue and encourage our 
appropriators to work towards the goals we have established in this 
report.
  We all praise the work of the men and women of the Coast Guard almost 
on a daily basis. We have seen the incredible footage of the videos of 
the rescues that they have made. We hear of their heroism on a day-in-
and-day-out basis. While it is very nice to say thank you in words, we 
need to show it in deeds, so we are providing the men and women of the 
Coast Guard the assets that they so dramatically need to complete their 
mission.
  Finally, I would like to thank the staff on both sides for their 
tremendous work, particularly John Rayfield, Eric Nagel, Marsha Canter 
from our subcommittee, as well as Liz Megginson from the full 
committee, and John Cullather from the staff of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their efforts. I urge all Members to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Filner) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report 
for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. 
I would like to commend the members of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard 
and Maritime Transportation and all of the conferees for the great job 
they did on this bill.
  My interest in this bill stems from the work I do on the Committee on 
Homeland Security and the strong need that we have to bolster the 
security at our Nation's ports. I am thankful that the conferees 
included the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson) on that committee. The traditional and 
homeland security missions of the Coast Guard must both be supported, 
and I think this bill addresses both of those areas well.
  One provision requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop 
a long-range vessel tracking system. A true global, satellite-based 
tracking system that will give the Coast Guard worldwide maritime 
domain awareness. When we have the ability to track ships on their 
entire ocean voyage, we will be able to target the ships that exhibit 
atypical or erratic behavior as well as to ensure their safety 
throughout the journey.
  The technology and infrastructure needed for such a tracking system 
is already available and in place, and I hope to see it will be used 
within months of passage of this legislation. I had previously 
introduced legislation addressing that important issue, and I am glad 
to see it is included in this bill. Tracking vessels is an important 
part of overall maritime intelligence.
  The bill also requires the Department of Homeland Security to report 
to Congress on the maritime intelligence plan required by the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act.
  Container security is another key provision in the bill which 
requires DHS to update Congress on container security technology, empty 
container inspection, cargo targeting and the deployment of radiation 
portal monitors at seaports.

[[Page 16851]]

  Finally, this bill gives the Department of Homeland Security 
continued authority to issue port security grants and accelerates the 
Deepwater program implementation.
  This bill will make the Coast Guard stronger and our Nation's ports 
more secure. I urge my colleagues to vote to pass this legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young) for his support in including my provision in this bill 
that calls for the timely review and adjustment of pilotage rates by 
the United States Coast Guard; and of course, special thanks to the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for his 
continued efforts to advocate for the just treatments of our American 
maritime pilots.
  Unfortunately for American maritime pilots, the review has been far 
from timely, and a permanent adjustment flat out has not happened. Last 
fall, during floor debate on this bill, I engaged in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to raise the issue that no 
permanent rate adjustment for pilots had been made. At that time, I was 
vexed at how the Coast Guard, whose responsibility it is to set the 
rates that American pilots charge shipping companies for pilotage 
services, let the 2003 shipping season come and go without issuing a 
permanent rate adjustment.
  The Great Lakes pilotage system performs critical safety and 
environmental functions for the Great Lakes. And not only that, it also 
requires by law that every vessel entering the Great Lakes has a 
maritime pilot on board. It does not make sense to underfund a pilotage 
system which is crucial to the largest freshwater body in the world, 
yet the Coast Guard failed to complete a permanent, full rate 
adjustment at all last year. At the end of last year, the Coast Guard 
finally did issue an interim rule which provided only a partial rate 
adjustment.
  In a letter I received from the Commandant earlier this year, I was 
advised that a supplemental rule scheduled to be published in February 
was going to be delayed until May.
  Mr. Speaker, Members, you might further understand my utter disbelief 
and complete frustration that a supplemental rule is still not out yet, 
and there are signs now it will not be out until October and maybe 
later.

                              {time}  1415

  Remember, the supplemental rule will not change the rate. It will 
just trigger another round of public comment.
  Every day that goes by is another day that pilots are not getting the 
pay that they not only deserve but are entitled to. This is contrary to 
the Coast Guard's promise of last year to adjust the current pilot 
system funded at 1997 levels. This is particularly disturbing because 
the Coast Guard regulations require rates to be reviewed and adjusted 
on an annual basis. Setting rates to 1997 levels will inevitably result 
in the fraying of the Great Lakes pilotage system.
  Foreign shipping companies and their agents in the United States have 
urged the Coast Guard to delay and reduce the proposed rate increase. 
This is not surprising because foreign shipping companies have an 
economic interest in reducing these rates, which they pay. However, it 
is the Coast Guard that by law bears the responsibility for ensuring 
that rate reviews and adjustments are completed in a timely manner and 
reflect the formula set out in detail in the agency's own regulations. 
It is simply not acceptable for the Coast Guard to have repeatedly 
missed its own deadlines of a rate adjustment. Such delays will only 
continue to subject the Coast Guard to the charge that it is placing 
the economic interests of foreign shipping companies ahead of the 
environmental protection and marine safety of the Great Lakes.
  It is unbelievable to me that it is actually possible that another 
shipping season will come and go without a permanent adjustment. After 
having written five letters in the last year requesting a prompt 
establishment of a permanent Great Lakes maritime pilotage rate, that 
is five times we have written, enough is enough; and I believe we need 
to call on GAO to investigate this issue.
  Again, I exhort the Coast Guard to follow its own rules and implement 
a full pilotage rate adjustment on the Great Lakes now. The pilots in 
my congressional district bordering Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Huron 
as well as pilots throughout the Great Lakes have waited long enough 
for the Coast Guard's empty promise to come to fruition.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I greatly appreciate the gentleman's statement which 
has laid out very clearly the problem that we face on the Great Lakes. 
This is really a Great Lakes issue. It does not affect the rest of the 
Nation. The saltwater ports all have different regimes for pilotage. 
But this is not a new problem that the gentleman has laid out and 
detailed in a very clear manner. This goes back to the 1960s when we 
had a pilotage administration that was separate from the Coast Guard. 
It was run by a private sector, that is, a nonmilitary, non-Coast 
Guard, entity. And that was a failure. They did not manage the three 
pilotage districts, either in effectiveness in getting pilots when and 
where they were needed or in managing the pay.
  Then the pilotage administration was absorbed from the Department of 
Transportation into the Coast Guard. For a while that worked, but the 
Coast Guard had a retired captain running the program, and he would on 
weekends be off at his farm in Virginia when they needed pilots to be 
assigned out of the reserves to guide ocean-going vessels into Great 
Lakes ports. That was unacceptable. We thought we had that fixed for a 
while. It was taken out of the Coast Guard, and now it is back in the 
Coast Guard again.
  This is not acceptable for ocean shipping that enters the Great Lakes 
at a cost of as much as $15,000 a day when there are delays, when there 
is an inadequate reserve of pilots to guide the vessels. The gentleman 
has put his finger on it. The language that the gentleman offered on 
the floor which the chairman agreed to accept, which I accepted and 
which is in this bill, will hopefully prod the process along. But that 
is not good enough. We need to scrub this whole process from top to 
bottom, have an independent review of it, and find a better way to deal 
with pilotage. It is unacceptable that the Coast Guard has not resolved 
it, the Department of Transportation has not resolved it, and that the 
Department of Homeland Security got their hands in this mess when they 
have nothing to do with it and the whole pilotage rule was sent over to 
Homeland Security.
  I see the chairman nodding his amusement over this mess which we knew 
was going to happen when the Coast Guard was taken out of the DOT and 
put over in Homeland Security. This is one of the fallouts of that 
whole mess. We have got to have this thing straightened out.
  I pledge to the gentleman, with the support of our chairman who is a 
riverboat captain himself and knows how important it is to have good 
pilots, we will get this thing done and we will work with the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). We will get this straightened out 
because it has to be done.
  Mr. STUPAK. I thank the ranking member, and I think the chairman for 
his help and support.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, continuing along with the concerns that 
the gentleman from Minnesota expressed, I have another matter to bring 
to the Members' attention that perhaps

[[Page 16852]]

both the Chair and our ranking member with their experience can be of 
assistance. I am here to ask for help in remedying a situation on the 
Great Lakes that I have just been made aware of.
  I received a letter today, as a matter of fact, from the Port of 
Cleveland raising serious concerns with a marine pilotage shortage that 
is causing shipping delays on the Great Lakes. Federal law and Coast 
Guard regulations require all ocean-going commercial ships to employ a 
marine pilot on board when navigating the Great Lakes. For reasons 
unknown, one of the pilotage associations has had trouble fulfilling 
its mission. This is beginning to create shipping delays. Since the 
beginning of this year, according to a study that has been provided to 
me, there have been over 582 hours of shipping delays according to the 
American Great Lakes Port Association and the St. Lawrence Seaway 
Development Corporation. A French cruise ship company has already 
ceased operations in the Great Lakes and other shipping companies are 
rumored to be wary of continued operations in the Great Lakes.
  While I fully realize the Coast Guard must place a priority on safety 
and lifesaving, the Coast Guard can stop these delays. Since the Coast 
Guard regulates the pilot associations, I believe the Coast Guard must 
ensure that shipping delays are avoided when reasonably possible.
  I ask the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) to work with me to explore this issue and to make sure that the 
Coast Guard is taking all necessary steps to avoid unnecessary shipping 
delays without impacting safety. To make this easier, I have provided 
both the chairman and the ranking member a list of delays and several 
letters of correspondence between the interested parties.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our 
attention. I was unaware of this problem. I do appreciate his 
suggestions. We will look into it.
  Concerning the previous conversation, in this legislation there is a 
provision in the bill to tell the Coast Guard to get off their you-
know-what and get busy and finish that problem that the gentleman from 
Michigan was talking about, and we are going to take care of that.
  With respect to the gentleman from Ohio's issue, I now will be 
contacting the pilots association to find out what is the problem. I 
was reading with dismay the amount of delays that did occur because 
there were no pilots available. I cannot quite understand that myself 
because these are fine-paying jobs; and very honestly, the revenue is 
quite attractive. I am anticipating my career, and I am really shocked. 
Maybe there is a place for me, after all, if I get out of this 
position. I will be working with the gentleman very closely to see if 
we can do it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for his 
observations. The gentleman's point and information is accurate, but 
the reason they are having difficulty getting pilots is for 2 years, 
pilots have been paid at the rate of a mate. The chairman of the 
committee knows very well what that means. A pilot ought to be paid 
better than the pay for a mate, and that pay has stayed there for 2 
years and the Coast Guard has failed to act. And so the pilots are 
saying, We are out of here. They are quitting. You cannot bring a 
seasoned pilot on board with one season's experience. You are going to 
run that ship aground.
  Because the Coast Guard has failed to act, because the pay has not 
been adjusted and the pilots are feeling abused, they are walking. What 
is happening is it is costing more for every piece of goods that comes 
into the Great Lakes. Every item that comes in on those vessels is 
taking longer, costing more than it would otherwise cost to be 
delivered to customers, and that means that our Great Lakes St. 
Lawrence system is less efficient and less competitive. That is not 
right. That is not fair. The Coast Guard needs to get this thing done 
and done quickly and fairly and equitably. If they are not going to do 
it, then we need to find another way to run this operation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner) for their attention to this. The Port of Cleveland is essential 
to the economy of our region in northeastern Ohio. Their knowledge and 
cooperation is much appreciated here.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, Americans have always counted on the Coast 
Guard to enforce maritime law, to secure our waterways and ports, to 
rescue those in distress, and to intercept illegal drugs. In this new 
century, however, we are going to need to count on them even more. In 
the Iraqi theater, the Coast Guard is protecting key ports and oil 
platforms and helping speed the delivery of relief supplies to those in 
need.
  This year, Petty Officer Third Class Nathan Bruckenthal became the 
first member of the Coast Guard to die in battle since Vietnam. His 
bravery and sacrifice shines a light on the often overlooked sacrifices 
made by our Coast Guard. When I spoke to Nathan's father, he said 
simply, ``My son served his country.'' Mr. Speaker, he did serve, and 
sacrifice.
  We have to keep Nathan and his family in our prayers, in our budgets, 
and keep the Coast Guard the very best in the world. The Coast Guard is 
always ready to defend our Nation and rescue those in trouble. Now it 
is our turn. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and 
to give the Coast Guard the funds that it needs to meet the national 
security challenges of the 21st century in honor of the Bruckenthal 
family which served and sacrificed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my debate 
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and, pending that, 
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be permitted to control the 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner) for yielding me this time to speak on this legislation. I 
rise today to support America's Coast Guard, and that is why I intend 
to support the conference report for H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act.
  I represent Maryland's Second Congressional District, which includes 
both the Port of Baltimore and the Coast Guard Yard. So while I applaud 
attempts to provide adequate funding for the Coast Guard and its 
mission to protect America's shorelines, I am disappointed that this 
conference report does not provide any language to protect the critical 
role and mission that the Baltimore Coast Guard Yard serves.
  The Baltimore Coast Guard Yard is a unique and indispensable asset to 
this Nation and the Coast Guard itself. For over a century it has 
served as the service's sole ship construction and major repair 
facility. It is an essential part of the Coast Guard's core of 
industrial support base and supplier of depot-level services.
  In the wake of the September 11 attack on America and the intensity 
of the national Coast Guard homeland security response, the yard 
capabilities and skill allowed the Coast Guard to sustain critical 
readiness for the fleet and our Nation. The yard plays a unique and 
indispensable role in both our homeland security and homeland defense 
priorities.

[[Page 16853]]

  For example, it supported efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan through a 
joint Department of Defense and Coast Guard project. Engineers and 
tradesmen designed, tested, and constructed the custom shipping cradles 
needed to transport the 110 patrol boats needed in Iraq. The yard also 
answered an urgent request from the U.S. Army and Marine Corps to 
quickly repair over a dozen old-style bridge erection boats. These 
boats were refurbished and shipped to Iraq, allowing bridges to be 
built over the inland rivers permitting the transportation of personnel 
and supplies.
  It is my understanding that the core logistics of the yard are being 
threatened, and I am deeply troubled by the absence of language in the 
conference report to protect the Coast Guard Yard's mission. This is an 
incredibly important issue to the security of our country. Protecting 
the yard and its shipbuilding and repair facilities is critical to all 
Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to consider the tradition of excellent service 
the Baltimore Coast Guard Yard has provided in the defense of the 
Nation for over a century. The dedicated and skilled craftsmen working 
at the yard today are among this country's greatest assets protecting 
our way of life.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation Act.
  It has been almost 3 years since the September 11 terrorist attacks, 
and we still do not have sufficiently detailed information about what 
enters our ports. We know that approximately 6 million shipping 
containers enter the United States each year, but we do not know what 
all these containers contain nor do we know what it would cost to 
inspect all of these containers.
  We also know that approximately 6- to 7,000 ships enter the United 
States each year, but that figure refers mainly to deep-draft vessels. 
How many smaller ships, or break bulk vessels, enter our ports? We do 
not really know.
  When this bill was considered in the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure last year, I offered an amendment that was accepted by 
committee, asking the Coast Guard to do a study. I wanted to know a 
complete breakdown of the number and types of containers and ships that 
enter the United States each year. I also wanted to know the cost that 
would be incurred if we were to inspect adequately all of these 
containers and ships.
  Once we understand the different elements of what enters our ports, 
we can establish a better baseline on what we are currently spending on 
port security. More importantly, we will have a better understanding of 
how we can improve port security and the cost that will be entailed 
with each type of improvement.
  I am pleased that this port security study provision has been 
included in the final conference report that is before us today, along 
with additional reporting requirements regarding container security 
inserted by the Senate.
  This is a good bill that will authorize appropriations for the Coast 
Guard. It has good provisions that will enable us to get a better 
handle on proper security in our ports, and I urge my colleagues to 
support its adoption.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his splendid management of the bill on our side.
  I compliment the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for his 
steadfast dedication to the purposes of the Coast Guard and his 
distinguished leadership of the subcommittee on this matter and other 
Coast Guard-related matters, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
for the steadfast support that we had in adhering to the principles of 
the committee as expressed by the House and passage of our version of 
the Coast Guard reauthorization.
  This is a very happy day for the committee and for the Coast Guard. 
It is the first time in 2 years, in fact a little bit more than that, 
that actually we are on the point of passing a Coast Guard 
reauthorization bill in the normal legislative course of business. It 
had to be done in the appropriations process last year, Mr. Speaker, 
because although the House did its work, passed the bill, the other 
body could not come to a resolution on the matter, and we never even 
got to conference.
  But this year, congratulations on both sides. The Coast Guard will 
have its charter spelled out legislatively as we need to do.
  We make a number of improvements, a significant increase in personnel 
for the Coast Guard. The former Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee 
was one of my first two committee assignments along with, then, Public 
Works when I was elected in 1974; and the personnel allocated to the 
Coast Guard in 1975 was listed at 39,000. It remained at that level for 
the next 30 years, and only recently have we begun to raise the number 
of personnel for the Coast Guard, while all along adding new 
responsibilities to the Coast Guard.
  Congress so loved the Coast Guard and so admired the work it could do 
that it laid on 27 new authorities and responsibilities for the Coast 
Guard to carry out without adding the personnel to do the job, and only 
in the last 8 years, 9 years have we begun the Blue Water program and 
the program of adding extended endurance helicopters and fixed-wing 
aircraft and surface vessels and high-endurance, high-speed vessels to 
combat the illegal drug trade and immigration trade in the Caribbean 
and on the coastal waterways of the United States.
  This legislation takes us significantly forward. We authorize Coast 
Guard to set hours of service limits for personnel working on towing 
vessels to avoid the kind of tragedies that occurred at South Padre 
Island. We require all commercial vessels to have electronic charts 
beginning in 2007.
  We authorize establishment of a National Maritime Enhancement 
Institute on the Great Lakes to study maritime transportation needs on 
the Great Lakes, and full safety inspection of towing vessels.
  We require the Coast Guard to set standards for adequate amounts of 
potable water on commercial vessels. After many years of studying this 
issue, we are finally going to deal with it.
  And we extend the authority of ships operating on the Great Lakes to 
dispose of dry bulk cargo residue in accordance with standards already 
set by the Coast Guard for at least a decade.
  The only disappointment I have with this legislation, and it is a 
major one, is that we did not come to a resolution of security issues 
along the lines that the committee agreed upon, the House voted on, and 
the motion to instruct conferees was passed with an overwhelming vote 
in this body, and that was to deal with security plans for foreign-flag 
vessels entering U.S. ports.
  We passed the affectionately known Port Security Act, known properly 
as the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The gentleman from 
Alaska (Chairman Young) and I were at the White House for the signing 
of this bill, along with Members of the other body. We all patted each 
other on the back. There was not enough money in that bill on the one 
hand to carry out the intentions of the legislation, but there was very 
good and very strong language in that legislation to protect U.S. 
ports.
  ``An owner or operator of a vessel . . . shall prepare and submit to 
the Secretary a security plan for the vessel . . . for deterring a 
transportation security incident to the maximum extent practicable.''
  It goes on to say, ``A vessel or facility for which a plan is 
required to be submitted to the Secretary under this subsection may not 
operate after July 1, 2004 unless, A, the plan has been approved by the 
Secretary; and, B, the vessel or facility is operating in compliance 
with the plan.''

[[Page 16854]]

  Well, that seems, on the face of it, very clear language, a very 
clear directive to the Coast Guard, but hardly was the ink dry when 
they went to the International Maritime Association and negotiated 
something quite different and issued regulations saying that instead of 
reviewing foreign vessel security plans, the Coast Guard will simply 
accept the security certificates issued by the flag state or by a 
security organization approved by the flag state under which that 
vessel operates.
  Many ships coming into U.S. harbors operate from a flag state country 
that we know as ``flag states of convenience'' or ``flags of 
convenience,'' those great seafaring nations of Panama, Malta, Cyprus. 
Cyprus may have been a seafaring nation B.C., but not in recent times. 
And under the Coast Guard regulations, the agency would have to accept 
approvals from these countries or their security organizations. Those 
countries do not inspire a great deal of security confidence in me or 
other observers of the security scene.
  So we came back with the House bill to strengthen that language, make 
it clear what we intended; and the other body had a little different 
version. We tried mightily to come to an agreement. When we could not, 
the conferees agreed to delete language in both bills and leave current 
law standing.
  That outcome and this conference report, Mr. Speaker, should not be 
construed as endorsing the Coast Guard's regulations. They are 
inconsistent with current law. Current law states very clearly that 
foreign vessels must have their security plans approved by the 
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. And 
those regulations are not in compliance, and they should be revised, 
not only not in compliance but not providing adequate security.
  Under these regulations, this is what can and will and is happening. 
A foreign vessel enters U.S. waters. Under Coast Guard regulations, the 
Coast Guard will not examine the vessel's security plan unless there is 
clear evidence that the crew has insufficient knowledge of the security 
plans and procedures. And even if the Coast Guard finds that the crew 
does not have sufficient knowledge about security, regulations do not 
allow the Coast Guard to look at these areas of the security plan for 
that vessel, identifying restricted areas on the vessel and measures to 
prevent unauthorized access to those areas, procedures for responding 
to security threats or breaches of security, procedures for responding 
to security instructions of the flag state under which that vessel is 
operating.
  Duties of shipboard personnel assigned security responsibilities and 
of other shipboard personnel on security aspects of their duties.
  Procedures to ensure the inspection, testing, calibration, and 
maintenance of any security equipment on board the vessel.
  Identification of the location where the ship's security alter 
activation point is located.
  Procedures, instructions, and guidance on the use of the ship 
security alert system.
  And yet, the Administration wants us to believe that under this 
system ships would be secure. This is not the type of security that we 
need. This is not what the law currently requires. The Coast Guard's 
regulations must be revised to comply with the law.
  Apart from this difficult security issue, H.R. 2443 makes many 
substantive improvements to maritime safety and the quality of life for 
the men and women who serve in the Coast Guard.
  I thank Chairman Young, Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo, and 
Subcommittee Ranking Member Filner for the cooperation and teamwork in 
successfully concluding this Conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support adoption of this 
conference report.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentleman from Alaska 
(Mr. Young), and everyone aforementioned for their support in bringing 
this conference report to the floor.
  I would like just to put a human face on it for a minute, that this 
is really about the men and women of the Coast Guard who are out there 
every day doing such a heroic job both here and abroad.
  For those who think that the Coast Guard is only here on our shores, 
recently there was a Coast Guard helicopter crew that was in theater in 
Iraq. One of those engine failures that I talked about earlier was 
experienced. The captain of the helicopter really had a tremendous 
challenge on his hands when he had an engine failure and had to decide 
whether to set the helicopter down in Syria or do a hard landing on the 
deck.
  We can just let our minds wonder a little bit about what it would 
have been like to have one of our Coast Guard helicopters having to set 
down in Syria and the implications of that. We can all see that that is 
not a good scenario.
  He very heroically put the helicopter down without any injuries to 
himself, the crew, or damage to the helicopter. But it is symptomatic 
of why we have to make sure that they have the resources necessary. 
This authorization bill will be a critical, but first step in getting 
us to that point.
  So I would urge all my colleagues to continue to understand the 
tremendous mission that the Coast Guard has undertaken, the tremendous 
job that they do day in and day out. I ask everyone to please support 
this legislation.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443. I want 
to thank the chairmen and ranking members for all their hard work. The 
Coast Guard is an integral part of our Nation's homeland security 
efforts.
  I want to mention that I am a strong supporter of the Deepwater 
program that is replacing a number of aging vessels with new, high tech 
ships that I have no doubt will serve the Coast Guard and the American 
people very well.
  Most of all, I want to thank my colleagues on the Transportation 
Committee for retaining and broadening language regarding security 
assessments at nuclear facilities. When the House debated its version 
of this bill, I offered and the chairs and ranking members generously 
accepted, an amendment to study the vulnerability of the Indian Point 
Nuclear power plant in Westchester County New York.
  I am very pleased that during negotiations with the Senate on the 
final bill, this version was expanded to include all nuclear facilities 
that are adjacent to navigable waters.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation is safe. We know 
that Al Qaeda has plans for our nuclear facilities. This assessment 
will help us in Congress and the Administration to better plan for 
protecting and preventing an attack that may be attempted.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the 
conference report on H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act, a bill to reauthorize Coast Guard operations for 
fiscal year 2005.
  I thank Chairman Don Young and Frank LoBiondo, and Ranking Member Jim 
Oberstar for their hard work and leadership on behalf of our Coast 
Guard men and women. And I thank my colleagues and fellow conferees for 
working with me to authorize the establishment of a National Coast 
Guard Museum in New London, Connecticut--where the Service first came 
ashore and established the Coast Guard Academy.
  In 2001, I became one of the founding members of the National Coast 
Guard Museum Association. Our goal was to fund and construct the museum 
in New London. The seven-member board included our chairman, James 
Coleman, Jr., Connecticut State Senator Cathy Cook, Rear Adm. Richard 
Larrabee, USCG (ret.), Cmdr. Don Chapman, USCG (ret.), Richard Grahn 
and John Johnson. These civic-minded individuals dedicated their time 
and talent to make this project work.
  Connecticut's two Senators Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman, 
also supported this project and I thank them for their input and 
support. I am proud to have been part of the effort, which we 
anticipate will be completed with full support of the community.
  The bill appropriately directs the Coast Guard Commandant to 
establish the museum in New London at, or in close proximity to, the 
Academy. This will ensure that future cadets, commissioned officers, 
warrants and petty officers attending the leadership school at the 
Coast Guard Academy will benefit from the collection and programs of 
the new museum.
  The people of Connecticut and the New London area are proud of their 
Coast Guard and maritime heritage, and eager to support the new museum. 
I am confident that local leaders will support this effort and be 
diligent in securing a suitable location for the museum.
  The Coast Guard is our major force in maritime safety and law 
enforcement, an integral

[[Page 16855]]

part of our national defense, and an important member of our New London 
community. It is right to honor the service and sacrifice of the men 
and women in the Coast Guard by establishing this museum, and it is 
fitting to locate the facility in New London.
  A National Coast Guard Museum will be a place to honor, preserve and 
share the story of our beloved ``Coasties.'' It is the proud story of 
brave men and women who live and serve by their motto--Semper Paratus. 
Always Ready.
  Mr. Speaker, today this body is ready to say thank you. More than 70 
museums across the country celebrate our military services, and H.R. 
2443 pays a long overdue tribute to the Coast Guard in establishing the 
first museum dedicated to this Service. I am gratified to have the 
support of my colleagues in passing this bill.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the conference.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________